The present invention relates in general to electronic information exchange and in particular to apparatus and methods for facilitating information exchange between an information requestor and an information custodian via a network.
The Internet has been heralded as the xe2x80x9cinformation superhighwayxe2x80x9d, a place where a person can quickly obtain information about any of a large variety of topics. As is well known, a person can use a search engine to do a key word search for web pages containing information of interest. However, as any user of the Internet will readily appreciate, such searching is often frustrating. For example, after a long list of potential web sites of interest is compiled by the search engine, the searcher must often wander from page to page manually searching for information that may or may not actually be present, a time consuming, and possibly disappointing procedure.
As is well known, web pages and/or the code that generates them are fixed in time. In other words, web pages are created by individuals based on beliefs that the information placed in the page will be of interest to future, unknown readers. Such readers are typically not involved in the creation of the page. Thus, web pages tend to be xe2x80x9cgeneralizedxe2x80x9d in the sense that they include substantial quantities of information that may be of interest to certain segments of the public, but they are not specifically tailored to the interests or information needs of any particular person. This generalist approach results in circumstances such as those described above; where an individual searching for an answer to a seemingly simple question must wade through pages of xe2x80x9cgeneralxe2x80x9d information with little or no applicability to the subject question before finding an answer (if one exists in the compilation of general information developed by the search engine).
Often times a person exists who knows where to locate and/or has custody of the information that interests the searcher (xe2x80x9can information custodianxe2x80x9d). For example, if the searcher wants to know how bats see in the dark, a zoologist with a specialty in bats could very likely recommend a web page on point and/or answer that question precisely and concisely in a matter of moments. However, in most instances the searcher does not know a zoologist, and is, therefore, relegated to searching through a list of web pages to find an answer. In short, while Internet searching is a powerful resource, it is often inferior to having the capability of posing a direct question to a human expert who can provide a direct answer.
Of course, networked environments such as the Internet do allow people to quickly and easily send messages directly to other people. For example, an electronic mail (e-mail) system allows an originator to send a message to a recipient. Typically, an e-mail message comprises text, but may also include graphics, audio clips, video clips, and/or other forms of communication. Typically, the originator composes the message on a personal computer (PC).
The amount and direction of logical message flow varies with the type of message(s) being sent. Often, a message flows logically from an originator to a recipient. For example, a mother might send her daughter a xe2x80x9chappy birthdayxe2x80x9d message. Other times it is desirable to have a message flow from an originator to multiple recipients. For example, an employer might send a xe2x80x9cmeeting noticexe2x80x9d message to several employees. Yet other times multiple related messages may flow from several originators to a single recipient. For example, each employee in the above example may respond to the xe2x80x9cmeeting noticexe2x80x9d to indicate availability. Of course, many other combinations and examples are possible.
In a direct messaging system, the originator(s) addresses the message to the recipient(s) explicitly (e.g., To: John@example.com). In a grouped messaging system, the originator (and/or another person or persons) may pre-select certain addresses and combine them into a named group to facilitate addressing. For example, the employer in the above examples may define a xe2x80x9cmarketingxe2x80x9d group with three addresses (e.g., marketing=Al@xyz.com, Bob@xyz.com, Cathy@xyz.com). In such an instance, the employer may simply address the meeting notice to xe2x80x9cmarketingxe2x80x9d, and the message will be sent to Al, Bob, and Cathy. Of course, group names and individual addresses could be used in combination.
In some systems the definition of certain groups is maintained independent of the originator. For example, if Al in the above example left the company, his address may be removed from the marketing group by the human resources department. In this manner everyone using the centrally defined groups is always using a consistent and recent version of the group""s definition. Further, individual recipients may add and delete their own address from one or more groups to keep the group definitions current. For example, each employee interested in receiving messages about the company softball team could add his address to a xe2x80x9csoftballxe2x80x9d group. Subsequently, the person organizing the softball team would simply addresses messages to xe2x80x9csoftballxe2x80x9d without even knowing who was in the xe2x80x9csoftballxe2x80x9d group. In fact, the originator may never know the identity of one or more recipients, if a recipient chooses to remain anonymous.
Well known list servers operate in this manner. Recipients add and delete their e-mail address from a central list, specific to a certain topic, by sending an e-mail message to a predefined address associated with that topic, wherein the body of the message contains a key word (e.g., xe2x80x9caddxe2x80x9d, xe2x80x9cremovexe2x80x9d, etc.). Subsequently, when originators send e-mail messages to another predefined address associated with that topic, the list server forwards the e-mail message to each person currently on the central list.
Similarly, well know discussion groups such as Usenet Newsgroups operate in essentially the same manner. An originator posts a message to a particular interest group. Typically the message includes a short subject field (e.g., web portals) and a body field (e.g., I think XYZ is the best portal because . . . ). Subsequently, multiple originators may post messages to the same interest group in response to the original message. Recipients periodically retrieve all the messages (or optionally just the new messages) posted in a particular group and read the ones they are interested in based on the subject field.
Many well known chat rooms and other xe2x80x9cinstantxe2x80x9d messaging systems have many of the features of both direct and grouped messaging systems. Participants may enter xe2x80x9croomsxe2x80x9d designated by topic (i.e., the address of the room). Subsequently, any and all participants may type messages which are then displayed on all other participant""s screens. Similarly, participants may designate topics they are interested in by completing a personal profile. Then, other participants may contact similarly interested participants by searching a directory of potential participants. Participants wishing to engage in one-to-one conversations may enter private rooms and/or exchange e-mail addresses.
Although direct messaging and grouped messaging systems are very popular and have been around for a long time, these systems have several drawbacks. For example, when an originator has a specific question he wishes to have answered, it is often difficult to determine how to address the message containing the question. Further, responsiveness to information requests varies dramatically. Thus, even if the originator knows or discovers who to send his question to, there is no guarantee that he will receive an answer, particularly if the originator has no preexisting relationship with the person receiving the message. In other words, these systems are disadvantageous because they require an information requestor to know the address of a person (or group) who is both likely to know the answer and is willing to respond (i.e., an appropriate information custodian). These systems are also disadvantageous because they do not include an adequate database of previously asked and answered information requests to reference and thus lend themselves to redundant questioning.
A person""s list of direct messaging addresses is typically limited to friends, family, business associates, etc. Relative to the overall number of potential information custodians (e.g., millions), the personal list is typically very small (e.g., hundreds). Accordingly, the information requestor may not know the direct address of an appropriate information custodian. As a result, many information requests may go unasked, remain unanswered, or get answered incorrectly. For example, a person wondering if they can make a certain tax deduction might not know an accountant. As a result he might decide to play it safe and end up paying more taxes than required. Or, he might ask an unqualified friend and end up following some bad advice. In this example, the information requester could locate an accountant (e.g., in the yellow pages or in an online directory), but for minor questions he is discouraged. The accountant will likely charge for the consultation and/or want to follow up with unwanted solicitation. Further, many questions do not lend themselves readily to a quick consultation with a professional (e.g., xe2x80x9cHow do bats see in the dark?).
Also, the information requestor may be uncomfortable asking certain questions of information custodians on his personal list. For example, asking a doctor friend about birth control may be inappropriate. Or, asking a coworker what a certain buzzword means may be embarrassing. Consequently, the person may operate at a deficiency without the knowledge or he may need to perform some time consuming research.
Similarly, in grouped messaging systems it is often difficult to determine which group(s) to include when addressing a particular information request message. If only a small number of groups are known by the information requester, he may not know a group containing an appropriate information custodian. On the other hand, if a relatively large number of groups is known by the information requestor, there may be significant ambiguity between the group names and/or significant overlap between the groups intended content. For example, the existing Usenet grouped messaging system contains approximately one thousand groups whose names contain the word xe2x80x9cMicrosoftxe2x80x9d. Many of these groups may be considered similar in both name and content, especially by an inexperienced user. For example, as of this writing, the Usenet system contains a group named xe2x80x9cmicrosoft.public.win95xe2x80x9d and a group named xe2x80x9cmicrosoft.public.win95.general.discussionxe2x80x9d. There appears to be no difference between the types of messages contained in these two groups. Often, but not always, the same message is posted to both groups. A person wishing to perform a thorough search of the subject matter may be forced to consult more than one group; where he is burdened by a significant number of redundant messages. Further, the exact group name is required when addressing. the information request message. In other words, the information requestor must either know the correct group name or look it up (e.g., consult a list of group names). This is disadvantageous because, for example, a person""s memory may fail and because consulting lists can be time consuming. Further, the consulted list may not adequately describe the intended subject matter of each group.
Even if a group containing an appropriate information custodian is determined, there is no guarantee that that particular group member will read the information requestor""s message and supply an appropriate response. There may be hundreds of messages added to a group each day. Even a diligent retriever is unlikely to read and respond to a significant portion of the information request messages posted. There is little incentive to do so. On the other hand, several information custodians may respond to the same information request message, thereby duplicating efforts and wasting resources. Other members may respond in a derogatory manner (colloquially referred to as xe2x80x9cflamingxe2x80x9d), because they dislike beginners (colloquially referred to as xe2x80x9cnewbiesxe2x80x9d) cluttering their message lists with novice questions.
To help eliminate novice and repetitive questions, some discussion groups publish an electronic document containing frequently asked questions and associated answers (commonly referred to as an xe2x80x9cFAQxe2x80x9d). FAQs are useful. However, FAQs have several drawbacks. FAQs are difficult to locate, because they reside on thousands of different servers. Many centralized lists attempt to organize FAQs into a single directory, but these lists are perpetually out of date because FAQs come and go with some frequency, and, the lists are maintained manually.
Once an appropriate FAQ is located (assuming an appropriate FAQ exists), it may be difficult to locate a question within the FAQ similar to a particular information request message. FAQs are maintained manually. Accordingly, most questions do not make it into the FAQ, only the most frequently asked questions are recorded at the discretion of a person who volunteers to maintain the list. Further, FAQs typically consist of a text file or web page with no sophisticated search capabilities attached. The only way to locate a particular question in the FAQ (assuming the particular question exists) is to manually search, follow predetermined hyperlinks (e.g., an index or table of contents), or electronically scan for key words. In addition, if more than one FAQ potentially contains the question an information requestor seeks, the crude search must be repeated for each FAQ.
As a further example of the inadequacies of existing information exchange systems, consider an employee at a large corporation attempting to resolve a relatively uncommon question (i.e., the answer is not conveniently published). Frequently, an appropriate information custodian exists, often within the same company, but the potential advantage of leveraging the information custodian""s knowledge is lost due to ineffective information exchange (i.e., the information requestor does not know who to ask). For example, assume the person is an automotive engineer attempting to determine if material A or material B is better suited for a particular component in his design. No industry or company standards exist regarding such a selection, and each material has certain advantages and drawbacks. If the engineer""s circle of colleagues happens to include an individual who has previously visited a similar question in analogous circumstances and he realizes it, his task is greatly simplified by simply asking the colleagues opinion. On the other hand, if he is unaware of this particular colleagues expertise, or no such colleague exists, he will likely face time consuming research.
In another example, a child might wonder what the deepest spot in the ocean is and what lives there. Typically, the question will either go unanswered, or, it will be answered in very general terms (e.g., a paragraph in an encyclopedia with a water depth and a list of species). If the child knew a marine biologist willing to answer an occasional question, the process would be easier (i.e., no research) and the response could be richer (e.g., an MPEG file recently recorded by a remotely operated vehicle showing marine life at extreme depths, accompanied by a summary of their unique characteristics).
In summary, web pages and other electronic communication systems are designed for generalists, and, thus, often fail to quickly and precisely satisfy specific information needs. Search engines results can be over-inclusive, overwhelming, and may not contain the appropriate information. Direct and group messaging systems require previously established relationships and return varying results. Attempts to consolidate existing information have generally been disorganized, distributed and incomplete.
In accordance with an aspect of the invention, an apparatus is provided for facilitating information exchange between an information requestor and an information custodian via a network. The apparatus includes an input coupled to the network and a first database mapping a plurality of information custodians to a plurality of categories. The apparatus also includes a selector in communication with the first database and the input for identifying one of the categories in the plurality of categories as being associated with an information request message received via the input from an information requester and for selecting a subset including at least one information custodian from the plurality of information custodians. The at least one information custodian is associated with the identified category. The selector automatically selects the subset based on historical statistical data associated with the at least one information custodian in the subset. Additionally, the apparatus includes a router in communication with the selector for transmitting an answer request message including at least a portion of the information request message to the at least one information custodian via the network.
In accordance with another aspect of the invention, an apparatus is provided for searching for an individual having custody of information on a network. The apparatus includes a database mapping a plurality of individuals to a plurality of categories. It also includes an input coupled to the network for receiving an information request from an information requester. The information request is associated with one of the categories. The apparatus is also provided with a search engine cooperating with the input and the database for searching the database for at least one individual having custody of the requested information. Additionally, the apparatus includes a router for directing at least a portion of the information request to the at least one individual identified by the search engine.
In accordance with still another aspect of the invention, an apparatus is disclosed for facilitating information searching on a network. The apparatus includes an input coupled to the network, and a first database mapping information requests to information replies. The apparatus is further provided with a first search engine cooperating with the first database for searching for a first information reply to an information request from an information requestor received via the input. It also includes a second database mapping a plurality of information custodians to a plurality of categories, and a second search engine cooperating with the second database. The second search engine is responsive to an unsuccessful search by the first search engine to identify one of the plurality of categories as being associated with the information request and to search the second database for an information custodian for developing a second information reply to the information request. Moreover, the apparatus includes a router cooperating with the first and second search engines. The router is responsive to a successful search by the first search engine to direct the first information reply from the first database to the information requestor and is responsive to the second search engine for directing at least a portion of the information request to the information custodian identified by the second search engine.
In accordance with yet another aspect of the invention a method is provided for facilitating electronic information exchange between at least one information custodian and an information requestor over a network. The method comprises the steps of: providing an exchange facilitating computing device having a first address on the network; defining a first category of information and a second category of information; and associating a first and a second information custodian with the first category. The first information custodian has a second address on the network which is different from the first address. The second information custodian has a third address on the network which is different from the first and the second addresses. The method also comprises the step of receiving an information request message indicative of a request for information from a first information requester at the exchange facilitating computing device via the network. The first information requester has a fourth address on the network which is different from the first, second and the third addresses. The method also includes the steps of determining whether the information request message is associated with the first category or the second category; if the information request message is associated with the first category, automatically selecting one of the first and second information custodians as a receiving custodian based on predetermined historical data; and routing at least a portion of the information request message from the first address to the receiving custodian.
Pursuant to still another aspect of the invention, a portal to the Internet is disclosed. The portal includes a first search engine which is responsive to a query received from a searcher to search for web sites associated with the query. It also includes a second search engine which is responsive to an information request from the searcher to search for individuals having custody of information associated with the information request. Further, a router is provided for directing at least a portion of the information request to at least one individual identified by the second search engine.
In accordance with still another aspect of the invention, an apparatus is disclosed for dynamically gathering and providing information via a network. The apparatus is provided with an input coupled to the network; a first database mapping information requests to information replies; a second database mapping a plurality of information custodians to a plurality of categories; and a search engine cooperating with the second database. The search engine is responsive to an information request received from an information requestor via the input to search the second database for an information custodian for developing an information answer message responsive to the information request. The apparatus is also provided with a router cooperating with the search engine for directing at least a portion of the information request to the information custodian identified by the search engine; and means for recording at least a portion of the answer message developed by the information custodian in the first database.
Pursuant to yet another aspect of the invention, an apparatus is provided for facilitating information exchange between an information requester and an information custodian via a network. The apparatus is provided with an input coupled to the network; a database mapping a plurality of information custodians to a plurality of categories; and a selector in communication with the database and the input. The selector is responsive to an information request message received from an information requestor via the input to automatically select a subset including at least one information custodian from the plurality of information custodians based on historical statistical data. The historical statistical data is associated with the at least one information custodian in the subset. The at least one information custodian is associated with at least one of the categories in the plurality. The at least one category is associated with the information request message. The apparatus is also provided with a router for transmitting an answer request message including at least a portion of the information request message to the at least one information custodian in the subset.